A polite response to a very wrong safety campaign, and blocking the bikeway in Manhattan Beach

It’s nice when government agencies try to bring a little peace to our streets. Let alone when they respond to the demands of bike riders to do something — anything — to improve safety when too damn many people are dying just for riding a bike.

But it would be even nicer if they actually made things better instead worse.

That’s why a group of well-mannered Scot bike riders have written a very polite response asking the Scottish government to pull the campaign and put it where the sun don’t shine.

Okay, so I might have added that last part.

The Nice Way Code is failing in its own terms

At the launch of the Nice Way Code, Transport Minister Keith Brown said, “The Nice Way Code campaign seeks to build a culture of tolerance and patience between cyclists, motorists, pedestrians and all other road users across Scotland.” However, everything that has come out of this campaign – which was paid for out of the active travel budget – seems likely instead to create conflict, reinforcing divisions between people based merely on their mode of transport. One advert encourages cyclists not to run red lights simply in order not to give other cyclists a bad name (and not because it’s dangerous and discourteous, not least to pedestrians) – lumping all cyclists together and implying bad behaviour by a tiny minority justifies hostility to everyone who chooses to ride a bike.

As cyclists we are used to hearing from a few uninformed drivers that ‘all’ cyclists run red lights, ride on the pavement, hold up traffic and generally deserve to be treated like obstacles on the road. But we never expected our own government to run adverts saying the same thing. As nine cyclists have died on Scotland’s roads already this year, it’s unsurprising that this campaign seems to have angered almost everyone who regularly rides a bike.

Safer roads will not come from lecturing people and pandering to stereotypes. We believe they will come from rethinking our current emphasis on designing roads purely for motor traffic and redesigning them to remove the sort of conflicts these adverts reflect. Pending that, it’s clear that many people who don’t ride bikes themselves are unaware of the needs of cyclists on the road. A campaign that really aimed to build a culture of patience and tolerance could have helped to educate them about these things, and to get cyclists, drivers and pedestrians to see things from each others’ point of view. Calling cyclists names is not it.

We urge the Scottish government to recognise that it has made a mistake and to pull this campaign before it ramps up tensions on the road even further. We suggest that it takes this opportunity to start a real dialogue between road users about how we can recognise that we are all people, and behave accordingly.

The letter was signed by over 85 people.

If I lived in Scotland, or thought I might find myself riding there anytime soon, you’d find my name on that list, as well.

21211. (a) No person may stop, stand, sit, or loiter upon any class I bikeway, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any other public or private bicycle path or trail, if the stopping, standing, sitting, or loitering impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of any bicyclist.

(b) No person may place or park any bicycle, vehicle, or any other object upon any bikeway or bicycle path or trail, as specified in subdivision (a), which impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of any bicyclist unless the placement or parking is necessary for safe operation or is otherwise in compliance with the law.

It’s that damned “safe operation” clause that gets you, which seems to give local governments the authority to shut down bikeways anytime they think it’s appropriate.

9 comments

That section of the Marvin Braude bike path is in serious disrepair and in need of immediate attention. The caulking, or whatever material is used to fill the seam between the two sections of concrete, has rotted away for long stretches. This makes it easy for a bike’s front tire to get trapped in the crack, with potentially catastrophic results. Instead of making bikers walk for surf campers, the city should focus its energies on making that section of the path safe. Sand also can obscure the dangerous cracks if you don’t know they’re there.

Under California law intended to encourage communities and private land owners to build pathways, the agency responsible for a bike path or walking trail faces no liability, even for known hazards.

However, there is a requirement in the law that signs be posted to warn about known hazards. In the case that fsethd mentioned above, the county — which is responsible for maintenance on the path — could be possibly be held liable if it could be shown that they knew about the hazard and did nothing to warn riders about it.

At least, that’s the argument I’d hope any lawyers representing an injured rider would make.

If someone gets hurt, there are scenarios in which the city is liable for the damages caused by their failure to maintain. Manhattan Beach blocked off part of that path where it merges with the street towards Hermosa earlier this year and replaced the filler in the cracks for this very reason. Also, they don’t have to be notified to be found liable, but if they’re on notice the liability can be a lot easier to establish.

Speaking of liability, local police and city governments along the MB bikepath know pedestrians (and that includes skaters) are not allowed on the bike path, yet fail to enforce the law. When the lack of enforcement causes accidents, can the cities be held partially responsible? Food for thought.

Well, as we all know, it is impossible to actually expect people to actually drive safely. So yes, we need to put all the responsibility on little children, and train them to do the things that grown-ups can’t.